Analysis: Russia returns to the World Championships, Belarus does not – so does the war of aggression no longer matter?

The Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled on Friday that Russia must be allowed to return to major international ice hockey tournaments. The decision challenges the exclusion imposed after Russia began its invasion of Ukraine. Russia’s sports minister, Mihail Degtjarev, called the ruling an end to discrimination and said Russia was returning to its rightful place in hockey.

The ruling matters because the International Ice Hockey Federation had excluded Russia from major tournaments. CAS based its decision on the safety of competitions if Russia participates, according to the article. This differs from curling, where CAS accepted that teams refusing to play Russia could make tournaments impossible to organize.

Russia’s return is not presented as easy. Former star Maksim Sušinski warned that Russia might struggle after years away. Its domestic KHL league may have weakened during the war. Organizers may also face refusals from teams or spectators who do not want Russia included.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport, or CAS, is an international court for sports disputes and appeals. It reviews decisions made by sports bodies and can determine whether an exclusion or other ruling should stand. In this case, CAS considered Russia’s access to major ice hockey tournaments.

Its decisions matter because international competitions are controlled by federations such as the International Ice Hockey Federation. If CAS overturns a federation’s decision, that federation may have to change how it treats an athlete or country. The article says CAS ruled that Russia must be allowed back into major ice hockey events.

The ruling also shows that CAS decisions can have wider effects. The article says the decision applies only to Russia, while Belarus remains excluded. It may lead to new appeals based on different grounds, including safety. In curling, CAS accepted that refusing teams could make a tournament impossible to organize, without treating that reason as discrimination.

The article describes Russia’s international exclusion as lasting five years. That is a long interruption in elite sport, where athletes develop through regular matches against the strongest international opponents. Missing major tournaments can affect experience, visibility, competition, and a generation’s chance to win medals.

The article gives several examples of the cost. Many Russian prospects became ordinary domestic-league players during the ban. In individual sports, some athletes stopped their careers altogether. Roman Rotenberg said Russia had spent the years developing young players so they would be ready for a medal contest when the opportunity returned.

The country’s readiness is still uncertain. Former top player Maksim Sušinski said Russia’s return could be difficult and that success at next spring’s world championships could not be assumed. His comments indirectly suggested that the KHL’s level has declined during the war. The five-year gap therefore affects both athletes and the strength of Russia’s team.

The International Ice Hockey Federation excluded both Russia and Belarus from major tournaments after Russia began its invasion of Ukraine. The decision linked international hockey to the war’s consequences, rather than treating participation as separate from the actions of the states involved.

Russia was the country that started the invasion. Belarus did not fight in the war, according to the article, but it supported Russia. The two countries were therefore removed from the same competitions. This created a shared sporting response to Russia’s aggression and Belarus’s support for it.

The later CAS ruling has made the situation more complicated. The article says CAS no longer allows Russia to be punished for the war it started, but Belarus can still be punished even though it supports Russia without fighting in Ukraine. That difference may produce new appeals using safety or other grounds rather than direct punishment for the war.

Russia is being allowed back because CAS’s ruling applies only to Russia. The article calls this an unusual feature of the decision. The ruling concerns the safety of major tournaments if Russia participates, and it prevents the hockey federation from continuing to punish Russia for the war it started on that basis.

Belarus remains outside the tournaments even though it supports Russia. The article distinguishes the countries by saying that Belarus supports the war but does not fight in Ukraine. Under the ruling described, the IIHF may still punish Belarus, while it may no longer punish Russia for starting the war.

This creates a difficult and potentially unstable situation. The article says the difference could lead to new appeals against Russia based on other grounds. Safety could become one such ground. The contrast also leaves organizers responsible for deciding how to run competitions when political responsibility, tournament security, and equal treatment point in different directions.

Russia’s return could create a practical crisis for international hockey. If participating teams refuse to face Russia, organizers may struggle to stage a complete tournament. The issue would not be limited to politics. It could affect schedules, opponents, venues, ticket sales, and the tournament’s basic viability.

Curling provides the article’s clearest example. Russia demanded entry to major curling events, but several national teams refused to compete against it. The international curling federation argued that allowing Russia in would destroy the tournaments. CAS accepted that the argument concerned organizing competitions rather than discrimination, so Russia remained excluded.

Hockey organizers could face similar pressure. The article also says spectators may refuse to buy tickets because Russia is included. That would create financial and public-relations problems even if the games technically went ahead. The return might therefore produce a tournament that is legally permitted but weakened by team boycotts, empty seats, or both.

International federations face several competing duties when deciding whether a country can compete. They must consider non-discrimination and competition rules, but also whether athletes can participate safely and whether a tournament can actually be organized. Political responsibility matters because Russia’s exclusion followed its invasion of Ukraine, while Belarus was excluded for supporting Russia.

The article shows how these factors can conflict. CAS ruled that Russia must return to hockey, but the decision focused on tournament safety. In curling, CAS accepted that teams’ refusal to play Russia was an organizational issue, not discrimination. That allowed Russia to remain excluded because its participation could undermine the event itself.

There is no single outcome across sports in the article. Russia is returning to hockey, while it remains out of curling and Belarus remains excluded from hockey. New appeals may use safety rather than war-related punishment. Organizers must also consider spectators, since people may avoid buying tickets when Russia is included.